Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:

>First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
>first, and the responses to that thread:
>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310

Reading the thread (which I already did) shows even more clearly that what 
you did is wrong.
The hook and the functionality of pwc/pwcx has been in the kernel for years.
People like myself have invested quite much money on cameras - assuming 
that no evil person would remove the support of an existing hardware from 
the Linux kernel once the support had been added.
What you did is WRONG. You may have the rights to do it. But it is WRONG. 
Once the support has been added it is wrong to remove it without replacing 
it with something else.

>And here's Linus's response after I removed the driver, when Nemosoft
>asked me to:
>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/229968

I wonder if Linus is aware of the entire story or he only heard your part 
of it.
And Linus. If you still support this.. I would very much like you to answer 
me - and the 10000s of other people that spent money on a piece of hardware 
that we had every reason to believe would continue to be supported by Linux 
- these questions.

- What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of 
cameras?
- How do you feel about the many others that are in the same situation?
- What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux - 
that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic 
reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).
- Do you actually care about the many people that uses Linux?
- Do you actually care about people? If yes. Why do you allow this to happen?
- How will this behavour bring Linux to the desktops?


>Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
>A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
>    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
>    had to take it out.

You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could 
have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly with the module developer.
If someone came with a new driver it was something else because no-one 
would be depending on it.

>Q: That hook had been in there for years!  Why did you suddenly decide
>    to remove it now?
>A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
>    good for a binary module to use.  I'm sorry, I should have realized
>    this years ago, but I didn't.  Recently someone pointed this hook out
>    to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
>    kernel's policy of such hooks.  So, once I became aware of it, I had
>    no choice but to remove it.

Yes. Again. You had the choice to leave this one in UNTIL an alternative 
approach had been made. It was not at all necessary to do what you did. You 
were not forced to do it by anyone. It was your choice.

>Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
>A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen.  It was
>    his request, and I honored it.  Go ask him why he wanted it out if
>    you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
>    the current maintainer and author of the code.

You were probably happy because it has been clear for months that the two 
of you did not get along very well. And now we all have to suffer because 
of this.

>Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
>    costing me money by ripping it out.  You should be ashamed of
>    yourself!
>A: See the above question about freedom.  If it means that much to you,
>    then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.

So only people that can code kernel modules have rights in your world? You 
have no responsibility?

>Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
>    GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
>A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.

Maybe you should start listen to people.
Maybe they get angry at you for a good reason.

I am a typical icebreaker. I brought the first Linux box into Motorola in 
Copenhagen. It was an uphill battle against management. Against IT 
department managers. But after one year of pushing I was allowed to run a 
pilot project. Guess what. I am in doubt now. Will my Linux box still 
support my hardware and software a year from now.
Will I continue to push for getting more Linux boxes into our company? No. 
This is much more than just a camera thing. This is about commitment. Does 
the Linux and open source community commit to support the hardware and 
software to buy or invest money on developing? Or can a fanatic with ideas 
destroy everything. There are people that have built a business making cost 
effective surveillance systems with Linux and USB cameras using Motion. 
There will be no more support of their boxes anymore because of you. I 
wonder what names they give you now.

Kenneth


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk  

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Brownell]

On Friday 27 August 2004 12:54 pm, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could 
> have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly....

And it had also been an issue for years, on technical grounds too:
that such number crunching does not belong in-kernel.

That's evidence that there was really no "alternative" way.

- Dave

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:54:55 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <kenneth@lavrsen.dk> wrote:

> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of 
> cameras?

You, just like the rest of the world and even distribution makers if
they choose to do so, can patch the driver back into the kernel.

Just because it's not in the vanilla sources doesn't mean you can't
get a working setup.  Look at all the NVIDIA users out there. :-)
Are they moaning about how the vanilla kernel maintainers are making
them "throw away blah blah dollars of video cards"?  Absolutely not,
they load the binary-only blob, the go play quake3, and they're happy.

> - What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux - 
> that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic 
> reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).

Not impossible, you're being rediculious, you can add the driver back
into the kernel you use just fine.  See above.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]

I'm going to be short and simple.

You're making a huge fuss over this.  You're making wild claims about 
being forced to throw away $2000 worth of cameras, the next great thing 
that Linus will toss out of the kernel, companies being hurt, and 10,000 
or more people being put out.

Here are a few points to consider Kenneth;

- Maintain the PWC support yourself
- Stay with the last kernel that supported PWC
- Maintain a patch that puts PWC support into the kernel
- Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the 
whole of the code?

I would also consider the ramifications of a business model that uses 
bleeding edge releases of kernels for their customers.  You're so upset 
and maddened by what has happened, that you've lost focus on what is 
going on.

The hook wasn't right.  It goes against policy of the kernel.  Putting 
off dealing with it is a slippery slope.

The reaction from the PWC camp seems to be wholly heated and with little 
logical discussion.  Before you turn your flamethrower on me, I also 
have two cameras.  Doing things the Right Way is better, I really don't 
want to be moving the lines every time something doesn't suit me perfectly.

-david
p.s. If you feel like throwing away two grand worth of cameras, feel 
free to ship them to me.  I'm sure my trashcan would enjoy the use of them.

[-- Attachment #2: david+challenge-response.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 183 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@blue-labs.org
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of
> cameras?

I would think that Greg has invested more time than what could be covered
by that $2000 (i suggest you look up the going rate for experienced kernel
developers), you could at least show him some respect in the way you form
your questions.

	Zwane

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Jesper Juhl]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:
> 
> > First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
> > first, and the responses to that thread:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
> 
> Reading the thread (which I already did) shows even more clearly that what you
> did is wrong.
> The hook and the functionality of pwc/pwcx has been in the kernel for years.
> People like myself have invested quite much money on cameras - assuming that
> no evil person would remove the support of an existing hardware from the Linux
> kernel once the support had been added.
> What you did is WRONG. You may have the rights to do it. But it is WRONG. Once
> the support has been added it is wrong to remove it without replacing it with
> something else.
> 
Assuming that any hardware support that gets added will be there forever 
in some form of another is incredibly naive in my oppinion. And this goes 
for any operating system, not just Linux - hardware support has been 
dropped from several different operating systems over the years for lots 
of different reasons - I have boxes where I can't run the latest version 
of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't 
see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.


> > Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
> > A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
> >    module.  That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
> >    had to take it out.
> 
> You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could
> have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly with the module developer.
> If someone came with a new driver it was something else because no-one would
> be depending on it.
> 
As I understand it the hook should never have been added in the first 
place. Doesn't matter if it has been there for a day, a week, a year or 10 
years - it should never have been added and once it was discovered it was 
removed - I have no trouble with that bit, especially since the pieces 
are still out there and you are free to just patch your personal kernel in 
any way you please to get the result you desire, or you can just stick 
with an older kernel until a suitable alternative shows up.


> This is much more than just a camera thing. This is about commitment. Does the
> Linux and open source community commit to support the hardware and software to
> buy or invest money on developing? Or can a fanatic with ideas destroy
> everything. There are people that have built a business making cost effective
> surveillance systems with Linux and USB cameras using Motion. There will be no
> more support of their boxes anymore because of you. I wonder what names they
> give you now.
> 
And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting 
binary only drivers?
Binary only drivers undermine open source. If you want to depend on closed 
drivers go ahead, but if that support disappears then take it up with the 
company unwilling to provide open drivers or open specs so people can 
write their own open drivers.
You purchased a piece of hardware that depended on a closed source driver, 
no open source developer has any resonable commitment to support that.

If you want to be constructive instead of just bitch and moan, then go 
talk to Philips and get them to release code or specs so we can get proper 
open source drivers - your real beef is with them, not with open source 
developers.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> 

Oppinions expressed are only my own, and do not nessesarily reflect those 
of my employer.
--


PS. I'm wondering why you asked Linus a whole host of questions yet did 
not even CC the man on your email.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Ford wrote:

> - Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the whole 
> of the code?
>

Because we can't find Nemo.

... sorry about that.

Really, does anybody know him face to face, or any of the previous 
developers of this driver? That could help.

[OT] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 289 bytes --]

Wouter Van Hemel wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Ford wrote:
>
>> - Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the 
>> whole of the code?
>>
>
> Because we can't find Nemo.


mine. mine. mine. mine. mine. mine. mine.

Just keep coding.  Just keep coding.

-david

[-- Attachment #2: david+challenge-response.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 183 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@blue-labs.org
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

>  I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
>of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
>see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.

Ehhh????? No comment.

>As I understand it the hook should never have been added in the first
>place. Doesn't matter if it has been there for a day, a week, a year or 10
>years - it should never have been added and once it was discovered it was
>removed - I have no trouble with that bit, especially since the pieces
>are still out there and you are free to just patch your personal kernel in
>any way you please to get the result you desire, or you can just stick
>with an older kernel until a suitable alternative shows up.

Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
Why is it so important that it is removed now?
Why does it have to be done in a way that create a problem for the common 
users?
Linus indicated that since Nemosoft had asked for his driver to be removed 
noone else could take the sources as they are and add them again. So any 
altertive would be a start from scratch? Or did I misunderstand this?
That can take years. So I cannot update my kernel for years?
How many normal users knows even how to compile their own kernel?
You guys on this list talk as if anyone knows how to write a kernel module. 
I think most of you have lost contact with the real users.

>And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting
>binary only drivers?

I am just asking for you guys to not DESTROY what is already there without 
an alternative.

>Binary only drivers undermine open source. If you want to depend on closed
>drivers go ahead, but if that support disappears then take it up with the
>company unwilling to provide open drivers or open specs so people can
>write their own open drivers.

Treating the normal users using Linux this badly undermines open source 
1000 times more I can assure you.
Linux is getting a reputation of being an operating system that you cannot 
trust being fully available in the future.
I am hearing those arguments in my own company. Stability and making sure 
that investments in information technilogy will not be obsolete at least 
some years is vital.

>You purchased a piece of hardware that depended on a closed source driver,
>no open source developer has any resonable commitment to support that.

It is sad that you need legal counselling before you buy a USB camera.
Besides. There are no real altertives. I have tried 4-5 other cameras using 
for example the OV511 driver. They all failed. They were either not light 
sensitive enough for surveillance at night or the firmware/driver was so 
unstable that the cameras froze and had to be disconnected to work again. 
Only the pwc driven cameras are stable and good enough.
Otherwise you have to use expensive real video cameras and they cost many 
times more for the same quality image.
So I did not really have much choice. And this is still the case as far as 
I know.


>If you want to be constructive instead of just bitch and moan, then go
>talk to Philips and get them to release code or specs so we can get proper
>open source drivers - your real beef is with them, not with open source
>developers.

Many have. And I will again. But if Philips will not let their competitors 
know about some brillient compression algoritm we cannot blame them for 
protecting their investment in the development. In the real world not 
everything can be open source. At least not when new technology needs to be 
kept secret to prevent copycat companies from lawless countries to harvest 
the fruits of expensive investments.
It is our own jobs that are in danger. Remember that.
But I think it is about time Philips releases the code or at least algoritm 
now. The copycats must have reverse engineered that little piece of code 5 
times now.
I have tried also but it is just too difficult for me to follow the binary 
stuff.

>PS. I'm wondering why you asked Linus a whole host of questions yet did
>not even CC the man on your email.

On most mailing lists people get angry if they receive the same mail both 
from the list and directly. It seems to be different on this list. I am 
starting to figure out the tradition here.

Kenneth

PS: Thanks to the many that writes support mails directly to me. I am 
really happy to receive them. And post them in public too. Linus is not God 
and he is not always right. He and his kernel developers need to learn that 
there are actual users out there.


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk 

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 00:08, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> >  I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
> >of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
> >see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.

BTW Sun did similar things with Solaris somewhere aroung 2.6 IIRC.

> Ehhh????? No comment.

Why?

[...]
> Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
> Why is it so important that it is removed now?

Because the driver's maintainer wanted it.

> Linus indicated that since Nemosoft had asked for his driver to be removed 
> noone else could take the sources as they are and add them again. So any 
> altertive would be a start from scratch? Or did I misunderstand this?

Yes, anyone - including you - can take over the maintanance of the
GPL-part of driver. Even if the former maintainer does not like it.

> That can take years. So I cannot update my kernel for years?
> How many normal users knows even how to compile their own kernel?
> You guys on this list talk as if anyone knows how to write a kernel module. 
> I think most of you have lost contact with the real users.

No, they complain all around all the time. I don't think one can loose
contact eeven if he wishes.
The point is: This is GPL software - either you do something, or someone
else does something or nothing is done. Whining doesn't help that much
compared to writing code.

> >And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting
> >binary only drivers?
> 
> I am just asking for you guys to not DESTROY what is already there without 
> an alternative.

It is not destroyed, it is only in another place. Find it and put it
back whereever you need it.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Oliver Neukum]

> Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
> Why is it so important that it is removed now?

Because Nemo felt that the driver was not in an acceptable shape
the way Greg was willing to accept it.

> Why does it have to be done in a way that create a problem for the common 
> users?

There's no way to remove a driver without causing somebody problems.

> Linus indicated that since Nemosoft had asked for his driver to be removed 
> noone else could take the sources as they are and add them again. So any 
> altertive would be a start from scratch? Or did I misunderstand this?
> That can take years. So I cannot update my kernel for years?

You are free to take the driver from older versions and add it to your
personal kernel. You may even publish it. You can be quite confident
that most distributors will add the driver to their kernels.

> How many normal users knows even how to compile their own kernel?
> You guys on this list talk as if anyone knows how to write a kernel module. 
> I think most of you have lost contact with the real users.
> 
> >And why is it you expect open source developers to assist in supporting
> >binary only drivers?
> 
> I am just asking for you guys to not DESTROY what is already there without 
> an alternative.

Keeping drivers against the wishes of the authors in the tree would
be very troubling for the future. I can assure you that no maintainer
will lightly pull a driver in this way.

> It is sad that you need legal counselling before you buy a USB camera.
> Besides. There are no real altertives. I have tried 4-5 other cameras using 
> for example the OV511 driver. They all failed. They were either not light

Then organize a website where people can sign a plea to Nemo to
maintain the driver out of kernel.
 
> sensitive enough for surveillance at night or the firmware/driver was so 
> unstable that the cameras froze and had to be disconnected to work again. 
> Only the pwc driven cameras are stable and good enough.

And thank him for the good work.
You are of cause also free to point out to Philips that you are creating
sales and are hampered by the secrecy of the compression method.

And give Nemo a little peace and consolation. He's very hurt now.

	Regards
		Oliver

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Paul Jakma]

Interesting comment on /.:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410

>From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary 
pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the 
smaller images produced without. Hence they speculate that the 
function of the binary pcwx part is actually to interpolate the 
160x120 image to the bigger 640x480 size, and has little to do with 
hardware..

allegedly..

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!"
-- The Ghostbusters

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[michel Xhaard]

Le Samedi 28 Août 2004 02:22, Paul Jakma a écrit :
> Interesting comment on /.:
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410
>
> From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary
> pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the
> smaller images produced without. Hence they speculate that the
> function of the binary pcwx part is actually to interpolate the
> 160x120 image to the bigger 640x480 size, and has little to do with
> hardware..
>
> allegedly..
>
> regards,
hmm, if the compressed frame size did not change maybe but i doubt :)
Regards
-- 
Michel Xhaard

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 00:13, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Keeping drivers against the wishes of the authors in the tree would
> be very troubling for the future. I can assure you that no maintainer
> will lightly pull a driver in this way.

Then the kernel community is no longer fit to use my code. So you should
remove everything I've written from Linus kernel too. I'll maintain my
own kernel.

Oh gosh, look I've just crippled Linus tree and stolen his project.
Thats *WHY* you can't just rip drivers out. A license was granted, for
ever. You can certainly remove him from maintainers, and if he insists
from the author credits.

Alan

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Craig Milo Rogers]

On 04.08.29, Alan Cox wrote:
> A license was granted, for ever.

	This has been discussed before (on this list, I think), and
the answer may surprise you, or maybe not:  nothing lasts forever.

	I am not a laywer.  I haven't looked at the U.K. copyright
laws.  I *have* read throught the relevant U.S. laws (a few years
back), and a copyright assignment or license (which I believe is a
broad enough category to include the GPL) *can* be terminated in the
U.S. in certain cases -- that's quite clear.  The "recapture" period
(for works created after 1978) is a five-year period that starts 35
years after the license was issued.  In that window, the author of
copyrighted code, or the author's heirs or estate, have the option to
revoke the original copyright assignment or license, i.e., in our
case, presumably, revoke the GPL.

	There are various details and procedures involved.  They must
be followed precisely, or the opportunity to recapture the copyright
may be lost.  One important detail is that work-for-hire copyright
assignments may not be recaptured.

	So, If you keep track of everyone to whom you, the author,
*directly* distribute a copy of your GPL'd work (and thus assign an
"original" GPL'd license), you might be able to effect a recapture by
notifying everyone on that list.  Then again, you might have to notify
everyone who ever received a copy of the GPL'd code, directly from you
or not.  The GPL raises certain issues that simply weren't forseen by
the framers of the statutes in question! :-)

	Again, I don't have the U.S. Federal Code references at hand.
However, here is an article that explains this issue for composers of
music:

http://www.ascap.com/estates/estatescopyrights.html

	Finally, three preemptive comments:

1)	This aspect of copyright law is something that all professional
	authors should know about.  You shouldn't have to relay upon
	a lawyer to know your basic legal rights.

2)	Linus Torvalds has recently reinforced the notion that the Linux
	developers comminuty should behave as honorable gentlebeings, rather
	than behave as lawyers.  This posting is not meant to gainsay that
	statement in any way.  Think of knowledge of copyright law as akin to
	knowing the terrain of a potential battlefield -- even though the
	successful strategist seeks victory without the need for battle
	(Sun Tzu, more or less).

3)	The U.S. Congress or courts could make further changes to the laws that
	affect copyright recapture.  Again, nothing is forever.

					Craig Milo Rogers

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> - What is the next hardware or software - currently supported by Linux -
> that you will allow being made impossible to use for whatever fanatic
> reasons? (This is not exactly like the principles you stated in your book).

Hardware which needs a binary driver is not `supported by Linux'. You _know_
the so-called support may vanish in the (near) future.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[asterix the gual]

One more to Gregkh's Q&A

Q. Is there anyother way to support the binary only driver?
A. Yes. You can maintain a separate linux-pwc tree with the necessary hooks :)




On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:40:00 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 00:13, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Keeping drivers against the wishes of the authors in the tree would
> > be very troubling for the future. I can assure you that no maintainer
> > will lightly pull a driver in this way.
> 
> Then the kernel community is no longer fit to use my code. So you should
> remove everything I've written from Linus kernel too. I'll maintain my
> own kernel.
> 
> Oh gosh, look I've just crippled Linus tree and stolen his project.
> Thats *WHY* you can't just rip drivers out. A license was granted, for
> ever. You can certainly remove him from maintainers, and if he insists
> from the author credits.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>